Press Release: Constitution Unit expert warns of Lords
reform dangers

6 March 2014

The Constitution Unit's Deputy Director, Dr Meg Russell,
known as one of the leading academic experts on the House of Lords, has warned
of "grave dangers" to the Lords from a Private Member's Bill on
reform which stands a chance of shortly becoming law. In a strongly worded
intervention she has urged peers to amend the bill, if it is not to bring about
"a very major change that would alter the Lords fundamentally, and in very
undesirable ways".

The bill, which was sponsored by backbench Conservative Dan
Byles, completed its passage through the Commons on Friday and has arrived in
the Lords, where it will be taken up by former Liberal Party leader David
Steel. It is intended as a minor "housekeeping" measure, to allow
peers to retire and to expel serious criminals from the Lords. But Russell has
highlighted a loophole, which was also raised in Commons debates: that by
allowing retiring peers to stand for the Commons the bill could inadvertently
turn the Lords into a training ground for future MPs. Few current peers would
take this opportunity, but it could change the type of people appointed in
future, and thus fundamentally change the Lords.

In a carefully-argued blogpost
just published, Russell sets out various scenarios in terms of new people who
could enter the Lords - MPs who have recently lost their seats, other failed
parliamentary candidates, and ambitious youngsters - all of whom might use the
chamber to build a future Commons career. Appointing such members could be
attractive for party leaders, as they would be easier to control than current
peers, compromising the Lords' well-known independence. As Russell argues in
the blog:

"Many members would become far more preoccupied with
constituency business and campaigning than with parliamentary scrutiny work;
many would watch far more carefully what they said, in order to appeal to the
media, local voters and their party leaders". In addition "debates
would become more politicised" and there would be a serious "loss of
long-term thinking", due to some members being appointed and leaving after
only a few years.

Russell points out that the bill so far has had poor
scrutiny: including just 38 minutes in House of Commons committee. No evidence
has been taken on the possible effects. Yet the evidence - from countries such
as Ireland and Canada - suggests that without safeguards, a "revolving
door" syndrome can develop between two chambers, severely weakening the
second chamber. Crucially, previous proposals - such as from the Royal
Commission on House of Lords Reform, and even Nick Clegg's bill in 2012 - have
included a "cooling off" period of several years before departing
peers can stand for the Commons. But that is missing from this bill.

Meg Russell said: "While I am in favour of allowing
retirement from the Lords, any gain from this bill as it currently stands will
be relatively small, while its long-term consequences will be huge and
negative. Opening up a direct route from Lords to Commons, which has been
closed for centuries, would be a major constitutional and political change. If
this is truly about 'housekeeping', then an amendment in the Lords to maintain
something closer to the status quo is essential".

Notes for Editors

The Constitution Unit
is an independent and non-partisan research centre based in the Department
of Political Science at University College London.

Dr Meg Russell
is the Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, and Reader in British and
Comparative Politics at UCL. She is author of two books on the Lords, Reforming
the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas (Oxford University Press, 2000) and
The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived (Oxford
University Press, 2013). She has also acted as an adviser to the Royal
Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of
Commons, and various parliamentary committees. She is available for interview: meg.russell@ucl.ac.uk

The House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill can be
found here.
Clause 4(5)(b) explicitly allows departing peers to run for the House of
Commons.

Join the Debate

News

Definitely not business as usual: Predictions and preparations for May 2015

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:00:32 +0000

On 12 March 2015 Lord Gus O’Donnell and David Cowling spoke at a Unit seminar entitled ‘Forecasting the 2015 Election result, and preparing for a hung Parliament’. Ruxandra Serban reports on the event. With just 6 weeks left until polling day, the outcome of the May 2015 general election remains highly unpredictable. With few signs […]

How should parliament decide who will be the next Prime Minister: by a nomination vote, or the Queen’s Speech?

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:00:22 +0000

Robert Hazell weighs up options for establishing who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which will be particularly significant in the likely event of another coalition. This is the fourth in a series of posts about government formation after the election. The Cabinet Manual explains the rules as follows: ‘… the Sovereign will invite the person […]

Farewell to the Commons: Reflections on parliamentary change over 40 years

Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:00:47 +0000

On 4 March Jack Straw and Sir George Young spoke at a Constitution Unit valedictory event where they considered how parliament has changed since the 1970s. Sam Sharp offers an overview of the discussion. Jack Straw and Sir George Young have 77 years of parliamentary experience between them – Straw was first elected in 1979, […]